Recent Profile Visitors

It didn’t happen like that at all. Many of the Indigenous groups in Canada, especially in the East and Central Canada didn’t have permanent settlements. Iroquois villages would last several years at most until the soil was depleted. These groups didn’t really have private property in the sense we understand today. When Europeans first settled here the land seemed infinite. Sometimes there were surprise attacks on settlers but there was no war on the Indigenous in what is now Canada by European settlers, though many of the Indigenous groups were at war with each other. Some of the forms of torture by Indigenous, including burning alive, were horrific. There were periods when the French allied with a particular group, the Hurons, in the fight against the English who allied with the Iroquois. The tv/movie notions you have are inaccurate.
In terms of this nonsense about policies passed by “anglos”, for much of Canada’s history there were around as many francophone as anglos. In major cities across the country, a good percentage of the population is foreign born (more than half in Toronto), and a minority of these immigrants are from English speaking countries. They can all vote and have a say in policy. Your views are worrying and make me wonder how many people have such misconceptions.

Yeah but Keystone is taking time to build with court challenges. Moving faster than TransMountain I guess.
Give Obama some credit for tracking down and killing Bin Laden and bringing better health care to the uninsured. Buy American will always be a popular domestic campaign under any party I think.

A lot of Canadian development aid to Haiti as well. A lot of police/military training and rebuilding from Canada in those invaded and war torn Middle Eastern countries. In spite of the Canadian holier then thou nonsense, we’ll always be there for our NATO allies when they are attacked, as in Afghanistan after 9/11.

Yeah well, Canada didn’t participate in the second invasion of Iraq that created situations like Abu Graib and the Shiite oppression that spawned ISIS. Canada did get saddled with the cleanup costs of accepting 40000 Syrian refugees. Funny how certain “NATO deadbeats” pay a great sum to rebuild and stabilize regions after US-led interventions. I’ll grant that Trump uses more threats than actual military force. I wonder if his diplomatic skills have reduced the risk of a nuclear Iran. The decision to overspend on military is a US decision and is not being called for by NATO. We do ask that the POTUS not cozy up to dictators, overlook human rights abuses, or insult allies.

When Confederation took place Canada had one fourteenth the population of the US. That has come down to around one ninth (perhaps one tenth counting illegals). If that growth pace continues, Canada will have about 50 million people by the 2050’s, roughly the size of 1950’s Britain. Australia and New Zealand are also growing. With the right procurements and investments, there is much that these fairly new countries will contribute. Europe has an internal security problem. Russia is focused mainly on non-EU Eastern European expansion. The Baltics and Norway/Finland remain at risk. China is making huge investments in Africa, building a new Silk Road to Europe, and sabre rattling throughout the South Pacific. It’s also trying to dominate internet and communications hardware and EV’s. Their wages are rising, yet they still have relatively cheap labour. Trump is using tariffs to level the playing field. They’re a blunt instrument and I’d rather see better international rules, better enforced, but tariffs are the strategy he is banking on.

Conrad Black suggests a trading and foreign policy block between Canada, Australia, New Zealand, UK, Singapore and other high standards Commonwealth countries. It would rival the US in economic muscle and be smaller than the EU and certainly larger than Russia. It would of course be a close ally of the US but could provide a third counter to China and, if it ever got any ideas, Russia.

Brexit was sold to the public on the idea of Britain regaining control of its destiny (and asserting the Anglo-American alliance and Commonwealth). It’s a powerful and persuasive position. However, as a customs union, the EU worked well for its members on the whole. May’s various “Brexit deals” retain some form of customs union without ceding decisions about immigration and some other federal decisions to the European Parliament. Brits have seen the fallout of open borders in Germany and France, as well as the cost of what are essentially transfer payments to poorer parts of Europe and European regulatory requirements which have also imposed policy on the Brits.
May’s deals have been rejected by parliament, which I think means one of three outcomes: perpetual Brexit talks with perpetual postponement of Brexit (and possibly an unfavourable hard Brexit if Europe doesn’t agree to further postponement), another referendum on Brexit (which could either end Brexit or bring Britain back to its current state), or a Brexit with a deal agreed upon by parliament, the only sensible course if there is to be a Brexit. I think if it’s the last option, that deal will essentially be a form of sovereignty association: customs union with some mild representation in and oversight by the EU over some very limited matters, immigration not being one of them. It might simply be a trade deal like CETA without political representatives in Europe or further obligations between the EU and Britain. The latter option is the winning deal for the pro-Brexiters. The former is essentially continued but reduced EU membership. It probably doesn’t make sense because while you get control of immigration, you still lose the ability to live and work anywhere in the EU, an advantage of EU membership yet also a disadvantage in terms of controlling immigration into Britain from the rest of Europe.
I suggest having a final referendum with two options: a Brexit with a customs union deal versus Remain, which means staying in the EU and trying to reform it from within. The second position is what Italy is doing. The deal should be in the referendum question. Such a referendum can only be avoided if the Brits can agree on a Brexit deal. At least a Brexit referendum with a deal written into it forces the Brits to resolve the matter for good.
The issue of the border between the Irish Republic and Northern Ireland is also hugely problematic. How does Northern Ireland retain an open border with the Irish Republic while also exiting the EU? That also has to be worked out in the deal. If it cannot be, Britain may have no choice but to face a hard Brexit forced by Europe or reject Brexit altogether.

Why do you feel the state should have a nanny policy that makes people wear something that protects them if it means they have to compromise a very important religious practice.? Let them decide and remove the government/company liability if they choose not to wear a helmet. Why does this matter to you?

Perhaps it was the most expensive that week. No doubt to remain competitive we have to watch all input costs, including wages and benefits. Just be careful what you’re willing to accept. You can always go lower. Auto workers already have two tier compensation for new workers. There’s nothing to prevent auto companies from paying workers barista salaries. Oh, and strip away benefits. If they get injured on the assembly line, it can be a small disability enhancement. Good to go.